The appeal comes at a tough time for Obama, who has been trying to shore up his liberal base ahead of the contentious congressional elections when his fellow Democrats are expected to lose many seats to Republicans. Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives.

A key concern has been whether those who have supported Obama in the past will show up to vote in the November 2 midterm elections. He has opposed same-sex marriages but supported civil unions and extended some benefits to gay partners of federal employees.

To be fair, in his 2008 campaign, Obama said he was opposed to same-sex marriage. But, of course, people who wanted to believe he embodied the hope that they wanted to hope believed that he really, secretly, supported same-sex marriage. And he opposed DOMA:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate

If you brightened at that February 2008 statement, did you perceive that if a court said the same thing — that DOMA is antithetical to federalism principles and to equality — that Obama would fight against that court decision? Obama only supports Congress repealing DOMA — did you notice that at the time? — and if Congress — the new Democratic Congress — applies its first burst of power in 2009 to other matters... well, too bad. Vote for them again in 2010 and maybe they'll do something for you some day. The arc of history is long!

But heaven forbid that the courts rouse themselves to the point where they strike down the statute. Did Obama ever give you the impression that he believed that courts should be in the forefront, protecting the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden — that courts ought to have "the empathy to recognize what it's like to be ... gay"? Did you take that empathy remark the wrong way? To say a judge should "recognize what it's like" is not to say the judge should perceive that you have rights and actually enforce them. You silly voter!

Because if Barack Obama follows through with even half of the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign, he'll have done more to advance gay rights in this country than any President before him – combined.

How can he rake in votes just by seeming to care about the rights and interests of gay people? Not even seeming all that much — he's against same-sex marriage! — but just by stirring hopeful feelings and looking like somebody who cares. Well, he's already done it once. Why shouldn't he believe that what worked once will work again?

That was written in May 2009 — Springtime for Obama — and now it's Fall 2010. Things aren't so warm and sunny anymore, and now is when he needs to maximize the votes. Most Americans oppose gay marriage, and he can't alienate them, so won't you gay people (and you people who support them) continue to do what you're supposed to do and vote for those Democratic candidates? You know the Republicans won't help you. That's the grubby argument.

I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Providing the leadership requires that Obama speak the truth, at least part of the time. But Obama must think that he can fool all of the people all of the time, so he goes merrily along lying about everything. That is mostly a sign that he views the American public as his enemy that would reject him if we ever find out what he really plans to do to us.

Of course I'm going to vote for the Democrats. And I'm not bothered by either of these decisions (to appeal) at all.

He's the President of the United States and he has to enforce the laws that are on the books. DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell are both the law of the land.

He swore to uphold the constitution of the United States and thats exactly what he's doing.

Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, DOMA and Don't Tell are the law of the land.

These laws either need to be repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The only way to get them overturned by the Supreme Court is to appeal them.

I see that Ann is on a crusade to try and show that Republicans are not anti-gay. She's had 2 posts about Ann Coulter and how she's supposedly pro-gay. And for proof of that, she quotes Mickey Kaus - who is one of the most blatantly homophobic writers in America.

Yes, the same Ann Coulter who uses "faggot" frequently as a derogatory comment. The same Ann Coulter who thinks that gays should not serve in the military. The same Ann Coulter who wants Lawrence Vs. Texas repealed and for gays to be imprisoned for having sex in the privacy of their own homes. Sorry - but Ann Coulter is not a friend of the gays.

Then again - Ann is very good friends with psychiatrists who are actively involved in the ex-gay movement. Enough said.

Let's look at some facts. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the legalization of same-sex marriage. The legalization of same-sex marraige will be followed by the mainstreaming of sodomy, which will be followed by the requirement that women submit to being sodomized. It's the next big thing!

A vote for Republicans is a vote to allow vulture capitalism to rule our lives. Vulture capitalism created the pornification of America, which normalized sodomy.

You don't have to buy health insurance. There's just a tax for not doing so.

Which is fine by me, because if you don't have health insurance, I'll have to bail out your ass when you get sick through higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums. I don't like freeloaders. People should be forced to take personal responsibility and that means buying health insurance.

J...You sound like Ann Coulter postulating facts about Democrats and Republicans. I hear you loud and clear. But why do you ignore the effect that the Momma Grizzlies of Tea party origin will have in Congress come January? Hold on to our hat and watch what can be done by that rebel wing of the GOP under leadership from Sarah Palin.

Unless we want to pass a law that says hospitals do not have to treat you unless you can prove that you have health insurance.

I'd be all for that. And let's eliminate Medicare while we're at it. I want to see all of these teabaggers showing up at hospitals after Medicare is taken away and then have the hospitals refuse to treat them.

I suspect the only reason they're appealing is that there's less than a month until the mid-term elections and gay marriage is still not popular with the voters. Once the elections are over, the appeal will be quietly dropped. Who knows what happens after that?

"downtownlad said...You don't have to buy health insurance. There's just a tax for not doing so.

Which is fine by me, because if you don't have health insurance, I'll have to bail out your ass when you get sick through higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums. I don't like freeloaders. People should be forced to take personal responsibility and that means buying health insurance.

10/13/10 10:35 AM"

So to be consistent you also oppose 'entitlements' and other subsidies and that no one should be exempt from paying income taxes?

The same Ann Coulter who wants Lawrence Vs. Texas repealed and for gays to be imprisoned for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

Right, when Republicans support existing laws and appeal things to the Supreme Court, it's because they're evil. But when a Democratic Administration does it, it's okay because that's the process and he secretly loves you.

Just like it's perfectly ok for Congress and the Administration to not even try to pass any sort of repeal, because Republicans might oppose it. It's not like it's actually important to you or them, not worth risking seats or approval ratings, not like health care, which requires as much twisting arms as possible.

I want the law changed so that there is just a nationwide sales tax and no income tax.

That way I will be ZERO U.S. taxes. And as someone who works on Wall Street, I think I deserve to pay ZERO U.S. taxes.

I'm glad the Republicans are looking out for me. Because I make slightly less than a million a year. And I am poor and suffering. So I need a tax break. Now. Because if I don't - well then I might work slightly fewer hours.

And if I work slightly fewer hours - well you will miss out on my lost productivity - and you will all suffer.

I asked if there were any Republicans he trusted enough to work with on economic issues. The first name he came up with was Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who initially agreed to serve as Obama’s commerce secretary before changing his mind. But Gregg is retiring. The only other Republican named by Obama was Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who has put together a detailed if politically problematic blueprint for reducing federal spending. The two men are ideologically poles apart, but perhaps Obama sees a bit of himself in a young, substantive policy thinker.

DTL consider what you're saying, your usual positions and the audience to whom you are speaking. I'll give you some time to retract that statement. (And please note that EVERYONE on Medicaid does not pay for their health insurance.)

Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, DOMA and Don't Tell are the law of the land.

These laws either need to be repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The only way to get them overturned by the Supreme Court is to appeal them.

Actually, no. The Obama Administration could simply not appeal. The injunction is global in reach, this is not a Court of Appeals ruling that only affects one circuit.

And even if it were, if they intend to have the law repealed, why bother appealing to the Supreme Court? Would the world end if the enforcement were uneven for a brief couple of months?

I guess you belong to the school of thought that says that the President and Congress are not allowed to have any opinion about whether laws are unConstitutional or not, they should pass everything and let the Supreme Court sort it out. Since you obviously seem to believe that DADT is unConstitutional, that rules out the argument that they should appeal because it is Constitutional.

Ah, well, I suppose we can excuse your gratuitous insults of Ann. You have to lash out somewhere in order to keep your cognitive dissonance from focusing on the fact that the President doesn't really care about you all that much past your votes.

OK, I probably shouldn't have said "facts." These are my gut feelings, my observations. But they are based on facts. Sodomy is now mainstream. Have you read Saletan?

I used to be a Democrat and in some ways still sympathize with them. But the fact is (going by my gut): Dems are lying bastards on the subject of same-sex marriage. They favor it, and when and where Dems rule, same-sex marriage happens.

Regarding the momma grizzlies, are you kidding me? Do you remember how Sarah Palin took pains to talk about all her gay friends?

Look, traditional guy. I'm a traditional guy too. And I say that there is no such thing as gay rights. I don't know why gays are gay and I don't care. I know that every child has a mother and a father, and that SSM creates a legal barrier between parent and child. Look at the rich gay men who hire wombs to carry their children. This is reproductive prostitution.

Regarding the normalization of sodomy, tell me where this HASN'T happened. Have you read your William Saletan lately? Do you want a world where your daughter will be expected to be sodomized on her wedding night?

I wish the pseudo-conservatives like Ann Althouse would deal with these issues. Didn't her good friend Instapundit say he was pro-sodomy? Well if he's pro-sodomy, would he be in favor of his daughter being sodomized? Is this normal?

It would be unprecedented for Obama not to appeal. Obama respects the law of the land and I respect him more for that.

I have no doubt that the current supreme court would overturn this decision, so I prefer to have the law changed legislatively - so it is resolved once and for all.

Just as I would like to see DOMA repealed. Just as I would like to see the sodomy laws (which are still on the books in about 20 states) repealed.

Unfortunately, we have vehement anti-gay bigots such as Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain who are fillibustering any attempt to overturn this law.

57 Senate Democrats are in favor of repeal by the way. Every single Republican senator is in favor of keeping the law on the books. 2 Senate Democrats are also bigots and favor keeping the law (Nelson and that cunt from Arkansas)

So, interesting question, that doesn't relate to blow jobs and buttsex; how is it that all of these pro-gay decisions are coming down in a lump like this? Are other pro-gay cases being decided the other way by more conservative judges and we only hear about the ones they win? Or are they just that good at getting their case to be decided under a gay friendly judge?

The law isn't that clear. I find it strange that there is this much unanimity amongst judges.

As a gay rights supporters who are also Obama supporters I don't get upset about stuff like this because I have the tiniest inkling of how the government works, and my political opinions are not formed on tides of emotionalism and sensation. I continue to place the blame for rights not advancing where they belong-- at the feet of the conservative bigots that populate this country. It's a democracy after all. But I don't have to like it, or them. Fuck them actually.

won't you gay people (and you people who support them) continue to do what you're supposed to do and vote for those Democratic candidates? You know the Republicans won't help you. That's the grubby argument.

That's the grubby dilemma. There's no reason for me to vote for anyone, essentially.

It will be amusing to see how many of the GOP voters here who keep trying to grab some sort of high ground on gay rights will end up voting for an outright anti-gay bigot like Huckabee should he be the nominee in 2012. The problem for so-called small government or fiscal conservatives is you always end up in bed - your own unnatural arrangement - with the social conservatives. You make your own grubby compromises, so I can't take too seriously your finger-pointing at what gays have to deal with from the Democrats.

I'm finding people's attitudes towards sodomy to be funny as all hell.

Althouse has mentioned Saletan's scribblings more than a few times about such interesting subjects as SSM. Yet Saletan has just run TWO, count 'em two, articles extolling the beauties of sodomizing females (not males, even though this is one area where men and women are completely equal).

Now she talks about DOMA, yet not a mention of the implications of what normalizing gay sex would mean. It would mean that gay sex practices are normal.

This one is for those who naively believe that an entity called the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice should be in the business of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws. Under the late Bush administration, one had reason to doubt. For years, critics blasted the Bush Justice Department for ideologically inspired hiring and firing decisions, unfair treatment of career (read: ideologically unreliable) staff members, and a selective approach to its enforcement responsibilities. Now a 180-page report prepared for Congress by the Government Accountability Office bears out many of those contentions.

The report, which assessed civil rights enforcement between 2001 and 2007, found big declines from the Clinton years in cases having to do with housing and job discrimination, and with disability rights. Thomas Perez, the new Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, summarized the findings to Congress in testimony this month.

Under the Bush administration, 324 housing discrimination cases were pursued, as opposed to 676 under Clinton. Under Bush, 126 disability lawsuits were filed, as opposed to 228 under Clinton. The Bush Justice Department filed only 15 cases under certain Voting Rights Act clauses, whereas under Clinton the department filed 35. (Some might find a certain consistency in that, given the legally murky circumstances under which Bush gained the presidency.) The figure on housing cases is telling, as discriminatory lending was rampant during the subprime mortgage bubble, which inflated and burst during the Bush years. Perez testified that "despite considerable evidence of abusive, discriminatory behavior by lenders and underwriters," the Justice Department neglected to hold lenders accountable. (Perez is an Obama appointee, but he's worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations.) What use are the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act if we have an administration that feels no compulsion to enforce them? So what were honchos at Justice concerning themselves with? Purging the department's ranks, apparently. A full 70 percent of the career attorneys working in the Civil Rights Division in 2003 had left by 2007

...

But as Perez pointed out to Congress, the Justice Department isn't charged with picking and choosing willy-nilly the laws it will enforce and which it will blow off. It must enforce all the laws under its purview.

First, DOMA was enacted by Congress, but litigation must occur through the DOJ, in the Executive branch. Isn't it the job of the DOJ to represent the intersts of COngress in not having its enactments struck down?

If you don't like that, consider the alternative, in the case of the challenge to California's proposition 8, where the Govvernor and Attorney General either fail to stand up for the provision, or provides only faux support for it. Is that really the way you would prefer to see things go?

Second, when reasonable people disagree about something, don't we want them to take the position that "I don't agree with you, and wich you would change your mind, but I'm not going to pretend that your side is unconsittutional just to get my way"?

Obama, whether you agree with im on this subject, or with regard to his policies in general, seems to be taking the correct and consistent, approach on this.

It will be amusing to see how many of the GOP voters here who keep trying to grab some sort of high ground on gay rights will end up voting for an outright anti-gay bigot like Huckabee should he be the nominee in 2012.

I will vote for Obama over Huckabee. It is difficult for me to choose who to vote for. I don't like either party. My views are all over the map :-) I'm conservative on some things - like limited government - but liberal on others - like gay rights and taking care of the planet.

I think it's a shame that both parties are dominated by extremists. Right now I want to see the right take over the Congress - as a check on Obama. Not because I want to see Huckabee as president :-)

J...Wm Saletan is an unknown writer to me, but I will go out and find his books. The need to protect God given morality for the next generation is a very real need. But in this world, policing the way others have sex is not possible anymore. You might need to find a possible way to promote traditional values. But I do hear your bold position...you maybe another John the Baptist like our friend Crack Emcee.

"ndspinelli:"Obama appeals this decision, and opens up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico on the same fucking day. He's more calculating and triangulating than Cinton."

Ya think? As commander-in-chief he should have gone for the hat trick and rescinded the ban on gays in the military. Win, win, win."

Obama picks at the scab of the oil spill just as it was receding in the public's memory while reopening the DOMA and DADT controversies. Triple play during election season. Sucks the oxygen out of everything else the administration would like to see of the front page of the 'Times' and MSM editorial pages.How did Rove get BO to do this?Now do you understand the evil genius that is Rove?

That confessions could be excluded, if suspects had not received the Miranda warnings, had been ruled on by the Supreme Court decades before. Has the Supreme Court already ruled on these gay rights issues?

Laughably wrong. It's a long list but start with repeated denials of subpoenas from the Civil Rights Commission relating to race-neutral enforcement of voter rights.

Keep in mind The Zero's lifting of the drilling moratorium is considered a defeat for him in many eyes. At the end of the day, I don't think the conduct of the three actions mentioned give the impression of an administration with its act together.

No, its about a racist administration using skin color as a litmus test for enforcing federal law.

And it punches holes through the whole "It's the law, he has to enforce it" BS. This was a case the DOJ had already won. It would take them zero effort to see it to conclusion. All they had to do was nod politely as the judge handed down a sentence. Instead, they actively worked to withdraw the case. Their "justification" was that the case was unimportant and not worth their time and resources.

Ergo, by their own standards, appealing the DOMA decision is important and worth their time and resources. This is not something the administration was "compelled" to do, it's something they choose to do,

Homos and leftards will believe anything a charismatic empty-suit will tell them if he strokes them just the right way. He was Santa Claus to them and he was going to make all of their wishes come true because they were good little boys and girls and listened and waited for their dear leader to take them by the hand into the light.

Hey DTL, what's it feel like to be let down? Again... When are you going to wise up and stop being a fucking tool for this sham ideology you keep clinging too? You've ended up being Obama's bitter clinger and from the looks of it, it's from his back side before he wipes you off.

That was for Titus because he always clenches in a pinch. I thought you two could relate.

I think liberals are pro-sodomy because they think that only uptight people don't enjoy being fucked up the ass.

Anal sex is overrated. It really is. It's just one of those odd, lingering sexual taboo's that no one wants to discuss because of the dirty nature of it, but once you've done it, the thrill is gone. I suspect, outside of pr0n and bath houses, heteros engage in it even more than homos. Jealousy ensues.

How come no one's pointing out that Arnold Schwarzenegger (a Republican) was in the same position recently and chose not to appeal for the anti-gay side but rather to accept the federal court's decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional? Just because other people decided to appeal that one? I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me the position Obama's in with respect to both DOMA and DADT is the same as the one Schwarzenegger was in, and Obama is appealing for the anti-gay side when Schwarzenegger did not.

How come no one's pointing out that Arnold Schwarzenegger (a Republican) was in the same position recently and chose not to appeal for the anti-gay side but rather to accept the federal court's decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional?

Which amounts to dereliction of duty on his part. Regardless of his personal feelings on the matter he should have defended the decision of the voters. The idea a politician can refuse to do his sworn duty but nobody else can pursue the matter in court for lack of standing is crossing the line between merely stupid and tyrannical.

Did the Bush administration investigate why so many black people were unable to vote in Ohio in 2004?

Shall we stack unsubstantiated Democratic allegations against video of the New Black Panthers? Holder sure prosecuted that to the fullest, didn't he?

And is there a big difference between not allowing people to vote and all the ballot "finding" Democrats have done in Washington and Minnesota? "Oh, look, there's another box! Wonder how we could have missed that. Watch yourself - I don't think the ink is dry."

As I understand it, when the state did not appeal Walker's ruling it prevented proponents from appealing as they have no standing in the case. So it was a tactical move by the state against Prop 8.

However, the 9th Circuit reversed Walker's stay until the legal wrangling over the proponents standing in the case can be heard in Dec. The Supreme Court has said if you're just someone who supported a law, or funded a campaign, you don't have standing to be involved in the challenge to that statute. So if the 9th rules against the proponents then the stay will become permanent and I assume it's back to the ballot box to pass a new statue.

Actually, AG Jerry Brown made the decision, not Schwarzenegger, although he is pro-gay rights.

In CA the state's highest eight executive officers are directly elected by the people; they are often of opposing parties and political philosophies. Each of the eight offices is empowered independently.

In CA the AG is the chief law enforcement officer, not the Governor. The Justice Dept is administered by the AG.

The Governor's only judicial duties are to appoint judges to the two highest courts and to award clemency/pardons.

Obama picks at the scab of the oil spill just as it was receding in the public's memory while reopening the DOMA and DADT controversies. Triple play during election season. Sucks the oxygen out of everything else the administration would like to see of the front page of the 'Times' and MSM editorial pages.How did Rove get BO to do this?Now do you understand the evil genius that is Rove?

No, this isn't Rove, its an own goal. Deliberately. If Obama is anything, he's a Narcissist of The First Order. He needs the GOP to take over the Senate so he can spend the next 2 years blaming them for all his mistakes.

There was an asymmetry of caring about the outcome. If the gay couple next door is married or not, how does it affect most people? The evangelical churches had a massive GOTV effort. In my neighborhood, the "preserve the family" signs were all in the yards of the fundamentalists.

The question is whether there is some sort of compromise position where gay and lesbian couples can have the legal benefits of being married without sticking their thumb in the eye of devout Christians?

Or have the positions hardened so much that there is no compromise possible?

As Michelle O. just said on the Tom Joyner Show, to rally black voters:

"Everybody I know in our communities are praying for us. Every day we feel that. And let me just tell your listeners that it means all the world to us to know that there are prayer circles out there and people who are keeping the spirits clean around us."

Black churches generally do not support same-sex marriage. Hence Barack Obama's position on the issue.

fls wrote: "The evangelical churches had a massive GOTV effort. In my neighborhood, the 'preserve the family' signs were all in the yards of the fundamentalists."

My evangelical church and others that I know of did not have a massive GOTV effort, or any GOTV effort whatsoever. The evangelicals had the massive GOTV effort, but fundamentalists had yard signs? LOL...

When the topic was the Mosque in Manhattan, you were the one who said that we couldn't have any say in the matter, but you could, because you lived in the area. What the fuck, now you are claiming that you don't live in the US? You and your friend Titus, need to get your story straight. If you two could refrain from eating shit, that is.

America's Politico said, It is over for the GOP and Tea Party. The NYT essay is our victory essay, both for Nov. 2010 and Nov. 2012.

How do you like your apples? GREEN.

Victory essay? This essay only shows how near-insanely out of touch and in denial Obama and you liberals are. Try "fairy tale". You might as well click your heels together and say "There's no place like home".

Let's look at this "uphold the Constitution" thing a bit more. Smart people do not try to guess what the Constitution means. Take the case of McDonald v. Chicago, does the right to keep arms extend against the states?

The case went up to the 7th Circuit. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a former colleague of Obama's, is also charged with upholding the Constitution. Like Obama, he's also something of a Constitutioal scholar. The Supreme Court had recently ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own handguns for self-defense. The remaining question in McDonald was whether this right was protected against state and local laws prohibiting handgun ownership. Almost all of the other fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights had been extended against the states, so this should have been a no-brainer.

But no. Citing a precedent dating back to the era of Plessy v. Ferguson, Posner let the case go to the Supreme Court rather than hold that there was an individual right to own firearms in Chicago.

And another round from the usual apologists who want us to ignore the fact that there is nothing in the laws or Constitution of the United States that requires the Federal Government appeal a court decision that overturns an unconstitutional law.

Obama and Biden both ran all of 2008 saying they were opposed to gay marriage. They have taken no action whatsoever to repeal DADT or DOMA.

The bill that reaffirmed the ban on gays serving openly in the military in 1993 was supported by a majority of Democrats in both House and Senate, and signed by a Democratic President. DOMA was supported by a majority of Democrats in both House and Senate, and signed by a Democratic President.

Here in reality, Democrat politicians do not support gay rights. They just make an occasional claim that they do, because that nets them cash and votes from those who choose to be easily deluded, like Downtownlad and Beth.

And no, putting a DADT rider on a bill that was already going to be filibustered for its other contents is not an action to repeal DADT. It's a way to pretend they care about gay rights while making absolutely sure it doesn't accidentally get passed.

there is nothing in the laws or Constitution of the United States that requires the Federal Government appeal a court decision that overturns an unconstitutional law.

We called assertions like that "begging the question" when I was a kid.

putting a DADT rider on a bill that was already going to be filibustered for its other contents

Huh? H.R. 5136, the Defense Appropriations bill passed by the House, already contained the DADT repeal when it was sent to the Senate. Unless certain Senators felt very strongly about the bill's line-haul truck provisions, I don't see what about it would have merited a filibuster.

How come no one's pointing out that Arnold Schwarzenegger (a Republican) was in the same position recently and chose not to appeal for the anti-gay side but rather to accept the federal court's decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional? Just because other people decided to appeal that one? I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me the position Obama's in with respect to both DOMA and DADT is the same as the one Schwarzenegger was in, and Obama is appealing for the anti-gay side when Schwarzenegger did not.

Because Arnold is a chick-shit coward who did not want to further stain the crappy legacy of his ineffectual tenure as Governor. Schwartzy isn't a conservative and instead of basically not showing up to the game and defend Prop. 8 he was basically telling everyone that it was a loser. But your argument is a giant strawman anyway considering that Prop. 8 passed. Oh hey, look, your shoes are untied.

Stop being a sucker and to answer your question as to why Obama is playing this rope-a-dope with the homosexuals is because a vast majority of blacks oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage. If he alienates them even further by becoming a homosexual sympathizer they will not like it at all. Look, you've already been lied to and you have been told repeatedly that you will be lied to by him and his administration. Why are you feigning some sort shock and surprise about this? Unicorns and rainbows isn't an ideology to hang your hat one. Shun the childish ideology you belong too and embrace the ideology of adulthood. No one gives a crap whether you are a homosexual, people just don't want to hear about it and see it something vastly different than they are. If you can't understand the reality of that, then keep being a bitter clinger like DTL because in that regard you two are no different.

"No one gives a crap whether you are a homosexual, people just don't want to hear about it..."

...and I don't usually want to hear about people's wives, girlfriends, whores, hook-ups, marriages and children all the time, but that's how life is: people like to talk about those things because they're the most important parts of most people's lives. Queers are not going to shut up about their lives, because no one else is expected to shut up about their lives.

former law student wrote:You forgot to mention that blacks & Hispanics were key demographics in passing Prop 8.

Blacks and Hispanics can't be fundamentalists? I assure you they can.

The secret flaw of the democrats. Which constitutency are they going to play off against the other? if they have to make promises which ones will they keep and which ones will they back off of to get votes of the other constituency groups. Gays are such a small minority, it seems like they lose in the equation. Which is why you shouldn't expect too much from democrats. Not only do they have to deal with their own wildly diverging groups, they also have to deal with moderates and even worse, liberals who are bat shit crazy.When you rule with your finger in the air, you're going to go where there's the most wind. If something proves unpopular they are not going to vote for it, especially if it costs them seats.

hear hear, palladian! heteros go on and on about every minutae of their relationships and think nothing of it but heaven forbid a homo should mention he's been with his partner for the last 20 years and suddenly he's 'shoving it down our throats' (such an interesting metaphor!).folks like "J" rant about sodomy but don't even know what it IS..or that heteros, by virtue of their sheer numbers, engage in such practices MUCH more then homo folks..nor does he know that the supremes have already struck down all laws regarding non-vaginal sexual practices anyway.as for barack, his admin. has fought in the courts AGAINST gay rights every step of the way (which they are NOT required to do) and yet the foolishly 'hope'-ful among us wave that fact away, insisting that he's only doing it for appearance's sake...huh??

Big Mike, I'm open to terms other than "marriage" - but in my state at least, that's not even on the battleground. Here's the text of the state constitutional amendment passed in 2004:

"...to require that marriage in the state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman; to provide that the legal incidents of marriage shall be conferred only upon such union; to prohibit the validation or recognition of the legal status of any union of unmarried individuals; to prohibit the recognition of a marriage contracted in another jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman...."

Most discussions of s-s marriage ignore that where states ban it, they generally ban the "legal incidents" marriage confers. I don't believe that's about wanting to preserve the word "marriage"; it's about a vindictive hatred of gay people. That's what makes it onto the ballots and, as usual, more reasonable conservatives go along with the hard-core social conservatives. Until those fiscal/small government conservatives actually act to take these issues from the Christian Taliban, I see nothing in conservatism as an alternative to Democratic spinelessness. Pfffft.

We called assertions like that "begging the question" when I was a kid.

Here in reality, again, we note that there is no special power reserved solely to the Supreme Court to determine whether a law is constitutional or not, and we really wonder how someone could go to law school without figuring that out. Even if one allows that determining that a law is unconstitutional is an exclusively judicial power, a district court exercises the same Article III judicial power that the Supreme Court does. The law is unconstitutional, because an un-reversed exercise of the judicial power says so.

But if you insist, read it as, "there is nothing in the laws or Constitution of the United States that requires the Federal Government appeal a court decision that overturns a law as unconstitutional." The Obama Administration is freely choosing to try to re-Constitutionalize the found-unconstitutional DADT. Nothing obligates them to do so except their own choice.

---

The provision that guaranteed a filibuster in any case was the DREAM Act. The Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, proposed a motion to allow the defense authorization bill to go to the floor. The motion merely would have required that none of the amendments had anything to do with immigration. You'll notice that the Democrats did not take them up on the offer, which would have allowed DADT repeal to reach the floor. They deliberately poisoned the bill so a DADT repeal would not have a chance of passing, and refused to remove the poison when asked.

Beth, it isn't Democratic spinelessness. It's deliberate, calculated, Democratic bigotry. You don't put an unrelated immigration rider on a DADT repeal unless you're intentionally trying to assure DADT doesn't get repealed. You don't appeal an overturn of DOMA or DADT unless you're trying to uphold DOMA or DADT. There are not cases of failing to stand up against bigotry; these are cases of active pro-bigotry actions.

It's not spinelessness that keeps Democrats from delivering on their rhetoric; it's that the rhetoric itself is a deliberate lie.

Did you notice that the Ohio polling places are managed by the Board of Elections of that county? And the county that had the problems with voting were in Cuyahoga County which has been Democratic for generations, back to before I was born and I am 70? The voting problems lie squarely with the Dems and their control of the Board of Elections. In fact there are a lot of federal court cases coming up charging the leadership of the Dem party in that particular county, both in office and party officials.

The question is whether there is some sort of compromise position where gay and lesbian couples can have the legal benefits of being married without sticking their thumb in the eye of devout Christians?

Or have the positions hardened so much that there is no compromise possible?

I don't know about anyone else's position--but years ago my state, deep in the Bible belt, had a poll question about civil unions for gay couples. I voted for it. I would vote for it again. BUT I would vote against same-sex marriage. Not because it offends my morality, but because I really don't want to see the local Baptist or Catholic church dragged into court for denying a couple their "civil rights."

It doesn't matter that there are a zillion denominations around, if one pastor won't bless your union, another will. All it takes is two jerks who want to make the news. Oh, and hate Christians.

Until those fiscal/small government conservatives actually act to take these issues from the Christian Taliban...

Beth, that kind of hyperbole destroys whatever point you were trying to make. If they were really "Taliban" homosexuality would be a capital crime. Gays would be rounded up and hanged like they are in Iran.

I assume there's some loony fringe church that wants to do that, but I doubt you'll find a church of any size that doesn't go with the "love the sinner; hate the sin" philosophy.